"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."It is this language that arouses murmuring from the Jews about its meaning, and rightfully so; at this point, our Lord is using language that is somewhat symbolic and could be interpreted any number of ways. He has yet to clarify His meaning. Our Lord will go on to clarify His statement with an even more shocking assertion:
This word sarx is typically used to denote real, physical flesh. Strong's Concordance (a Protestant book, remember), defines sarx as, "flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts."
Sarx can occasionally mean simply body in a generic sort of way, but the Greek has another word for body: soma. The word soma is used for body in the Synoptic Gospels at the Last Supper, as well as in 1 Corinthians 10. Yet here, when the Jews are looking for our Lord to clarify His meaning on how He is the Bread of Life, He chooses the word sarx, which is a more univocal term and denotes physical flesh.
Our Lord is insisting on a literal interpretation.
Absurd, and not any more than the Lord insisted on a literal interpretation of being the lamb of God, and living water, or of destroying the temple, and is no more literal than Jesus bread and living by the Father meaning by actually consuming and ignores what I already showed you. So here it is again for stubborn possessed provocative prevaricating propagandists.
Had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, continued on in seeking the spiritual meaning, then they would understood, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) And "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
For just how did Christ "live by the Father"? The answer is that the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Thus for the Lord Jesus who lived by every word of God and said were are to, (Mt. 4:4) the doing of His will was "meat."
For once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34) And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future (which the lost Jews presumed would be needed under a literal meaning), but that His words which transcendent time and space are Spirit and life: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63) Indeed, "hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." (Isaiah 55:2)
For as with the rest of John and Scripture, it is faith which obtains spiritual life by believing the gospel. As John esp. makes clear, contrary to consuming flesh. Thus as Peter affirmed, "thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)
For the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything, and that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, having first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by effectually feeding upon the word of God and thus obeying it. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.), the word of God is what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being that which is called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, and with the preaching of which being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32) Thanks be to God.
Sarx is used about 15 times in the NT, including in the negative sense in "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" and as referring to the fallen sinful nature in Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Romans 8:12-13)
Meanwhile you are not only posting propaganda but pilfering and while passing it off as your own, unless you just forgot to mention where you copied your pasted polemic from. http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/240-flesh-in-john-6.html
Regardless, they all have been shown to be specious in the years here and such hardly warrants further reproof.